It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nearly half of DC employers have laid off workers, reduced hours due to min. wage hikes

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
This is the sobering reality - or wake up call if you prefer - attached to the Liberal notion that in order to resolve poverty and wealth distribution issues, Governments should quickly and materially increase mandated minimum wages...


Nearly half of Washington, D.C. employers said they have either laid off employees or reduced the hours of employees to adapt to the District of Columbia’s minimum wage hikes since 2014, according to a report from the Employment Policies Institute. The minimum wage in the District of Columbia has increased from a $8.25 hourly rate in 2014 to the current rate of $11.50 per hour.


So, what is a Democrat Politician to do, in response to this decline in employment due to a 39% increase in the minimum wage? Why, increase it by another 30%, of course!


Mayor Muriel Bowser advocated a $15 minimum wage in her State of the District address earlier this year.


And while you are at it, why not impose more employee benefit burdens on employers...that should help even more.


In recent months, the City Council in D.C. has considered enacting a number of new labor mandates, including a higher minimum wage, a bill that would fine employers for schedule changes, and a family leave policy funded by a tax on employers,” the report says.


Why not just make the Minimum Wage $25 per hour?

Because, you see, businesses by and large are are just exploiting their workers and keeping all of the excess profits for themselves. Wages and benefits are not business expenses that form a material component of the overall Cost of Products/Services that determine at what price a business can profitably sell their outputs - competitively against business rivals domestic and foreign.

Oh no, artificially raise wages by 40% or 50% or 70% and employers will simply raise their prices tomorrow to restore their profit margins and everybody wins. Right? Wrong!

What Bernie and the other forces of the (loonie) left are not telling you is:

1) Demand goes down as price goes up...when demand goes down, sales go down...and with that in-kind reductions in demand for labour
2) Employers who want to continue to compete (in the real dog eat dog world that we live in...not the socialist paradise that the left believes can be force fed), will find ways to escape the imposition of artificially high minimum wages (contracting out, cutting service, increasing workloads, etc.)
3) Employers who can't compete anymore, where their industry provides the opportunity, will seek out lower cost alternatives to local labour (buying foreign made components/services - or moving their production facilities to lower-cost labour markets).

If you don't believe me that this is the result, just ask the employees who have lost their jobs in Washington DC since 2014 - or any of the millions who have lost their jobs because their employers moved their plants to Mexico or China or Vietnam (etc.)...or the millions more who lost their businesses (and the employees of those businesses) because their clientelle are now out of work and can no longer afford to frequent those businesses.

I bring all of this up because people in the United States have some very important decisions to make in November - and they need to be thinking about all of the "free stuff" being offered by the Left as the solutions to what ails people...Government-mandated higher wages (free money!!), immediate elimination/drastic reduction of carbon-based sources of energy (save the planet!!), free College education (excellent, everybody can go to college for nothing, get their Phds...and then go to work for McDonalds at $15 per hour - problem solved!), free Health Care for everybody, food stamps galore...how about a "guaranteed minimum income" - now we're talking!!

The problem with all of this utopian thinking in America is...the rest of the world is happily filling the vacuum with their low quality, low wage, no health and safety, no working conditions standards, no environmental standards, pilfered technology, currency manipulated products and services - which America happily allows in the name of Globalism and "Free Trade".

Yup...think long and hard about how you cast your ballot this year folks. Just remember what usually happens when kids jump into a van with somebody who is offering them free candy...




posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

I would guess that the small businesses which can afford to keep their employees are paying them "under the table".



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale
Maybe they can reduce the CEO's pay to under 3 million a year, might help.

I made $10 an hour in the 1970's, time for a raise or just go out of Business.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Well. From what I can tell if they stick to their guns it'll force the employers to not hoard money and simply take a pay cut for once I their life, and it'll be a swift kick in the ass reality check for those who got laid off to better themselves.
The issue is wages, people can't live off minimum wage, period. And employers aren't willing to give out raises, it's pure greed.

I still work part time with my girlfriend at a restaurant. Once every two weeks, I used to work their full time. The owner of 5 stores makes managers and employees jump through several hoops to get even a 50 cent raise. Yet he owns his own airplane, four sports cars, goes on month like vacations twice a year, owns a ranch, etc.
Yet, at the same time his stores are struggling.
What did he do instead of offering more money for better quality workers, or hiring staff that isn't kids and seniors, he just cut hours across the board, cross trained everyone and made those people who stayed behind work harder, and lowered the quality of food.
Pure, f'ing greed.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I call bs. If they can operate with fewer people they didn't need them to begin with.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: damwel

I'm sure we'll keep saying that until there are no jobs left. Why not right? Employers big and small have unlimited money..Those greedy bastards thinking they can run a business for profit.
edit on 8 6 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: mobiusmale
Maybe they can reduce the CEO's pay to under 3 million a year, might help.

I made $10 an hour in the 1970's, time for a raise or just go out of Business.


Small businesses don't have CEOs in the way you are thinking. They go out of business.

So your laws and demands are creating a world that reinforces what you hate. Congrats!



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

No, what offends them isn't that a business can be run for profit. What offends them is that the owner of a business, not matter the size, has the unending gaul to presume that if they started and worked and salved and sacrificed to make a small business successful, then they ought to enjoy some of the fruits of that labor ... you know enjoy it more then the employees who only just got hired on and did none of the initial work to get it going.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
I call bs. If they can operate with fewer people they didn't need them to begin with.


Yeah, and if they can operate with robot kiosks, then those people who were employed didn't actually need those jobs ...



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: mobiusmale
Maybe they can reduce the CEO's pay to under 3 million a year, might help.

I made $10 an hour in the 1970's, time for a raise or just go out of Business.


Small businesses don't have CEOs in the way you are thinking. They go out of business.

So your laws and demands are creating a world that reinforces what you hate. Congrats!


You know what else was different in the 70's? 1% didn't have 70% of the Wealth and they were Taxed accordingly. And there was far less hate.
edit on 8-6-2016 by ugmold because: typo



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Demand goes down when prices go up? Maybe in a textbook, but this is the real world, where the cost of houses, hell even renting an apartment keeps going up, year after year. Doesn't look like there's a lack of demand there.

I'm don't particularly feel raising the minimum wage is the answer, but something has to be addressed somewhere.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

RAise minimum wage and decrease CEO Salary or go out of business...that was the intent, glad its happening.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Firstly it's not an artificialwage hike. When we moved away from the gold standard we opened the door to China and started using the CPI to judge inflation. Not only did we start using the CPI to judge inflation but the US started to exploit the use of the cpi, and cheap goods from slave labor countries.

Basically we created a disaster. A carpenter today makes about the same wage as he did in the mid to late seventies. Meanwhile cost of living isn't the same by any stretch. Sure he can by cheap clothes made by slaves at wallmart but he sure has trouble buying a house.

Min wage should have been progressively probably bi yearly slowly raised by cents not dollars. NoW have a disaste.

If you work 40 hours you have to examine a serious moral question of should a person working full time be able to support themselves and a family at a basic level. The answer to that can be examined in philosophy of empericicsm and even our forefathers. The injustices by corperations on people are a big deal to classical liberals.

That doesnt mean all corperations are bad or bussiness is in any way bad. It means we let crooks and allogarchs write policy including central bank planning. Like the largest corps like GE getting gov contracts and grants over smaller competitors.


The min wage hike should be offset by a reduction in corporate taxes. The shareholders can decide if they want that reduction to offset an increased labor cost or give their CEO's bonuses. I have a feeling if the policy is public the boards would be aware and watching their stocks value.

Personally I think there ia a moral and ethical obligation to provide a full-time employee with a wage enough to support one self and if they can't cover their whole family because of wage the.peraon actually working full time should get benefits related to family needs. Which would mostly be food. Having single moms work over 40 only makes their kids a more likely menace to society.

Wages need to go up. There are plenty of solutions economists have thought about. The thing is the complicated taxes and public policy created by the big lobby power are actually keeping away competition. We have very high corporate taxes. Which benefit who? The guys big enough to have accounting floors and can hide money. Meanwhile the small guy needs a miracle or to hit the market at the right time.

We could and should raise taxes on high earning individuals to lower corporate taxes. That has shown to be very effective in models at acquiring more bussiness in the us. I have a feeling though their may be some backlash from the very wealthy who are supposedly job creators.



edit on 8-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: mobiusmale

We could and should raise taxes on high earning individuals to lower corporate taxes. That has shown to be very effective in models at acquiring more bussiness in the us. I have a feeling though their may be some backlash from the very wealthy who are supposedly job creators.




Isn't this what Trump put forth as a tax plan a few months ago?

And I thought it was businesses that were job creators, not the CEOs who wants to buy three yachts, twenty-one super cars, nine mansions, two "business" jets, and a private island?

Man do the disgustingly rich have everyone ____ up...



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
If the government would taxing small businesses out of business and adding social welfare cost on top of social welfare cost on top of social welfare cost while mismanaging trade tariffs and making it harder for US born manufacturers to compete in the global markets than this wouldn't be an issue.

The real culprit is the government and not business.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I have a small business my father has a small manufacturing bussiness.

If you don't think the big corps love the fact we have high corporate taxes your a fool. Who do you think wins in that fight. A small start up with the burden of start up expenses and massive corporate taxes and accounting duties. Or the big conglomerate with a whole floor of bean counters figuring out loopholes?



Hey without competition thay can really run the market.


Min wage should have been slowly raised cents every couple years. It's unethical to
provide full time workers with a poverty level wage.

It's funny how so many Christians morals go right out the window with bussiness. Some things shouldn't be decided by the market alone. Particularly ethical questions.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I am a perfect example of why a minimum wage hike would be disastrous. I currently make 15 an hour doing construction in a state(NC) with a 7.25 minimum wage. So essentially my labor as it stands currently is worth more than double that of someone flipping burgers. If the minimum wage is raised to say 15 dollars like they want then should I be getting paid 30 an hour????



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

If they would stop taxing small manufacturers out of business this wouldnt be an issue. Issue if the imposed import tariffs on imports equal to that of the rest of the world 20-30%.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

It's the size of the profits, we are so done with that. So they can put others on the state and federal welfare, done with that.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Like the poster above said big corporations need their own set of rules and shouldnt be following the same set of rules as small businesses.

They can use their capital more effectively because more money = more money.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join